-
What is the conventional wisdom on playing modes with respect to fingering? I have been just using my originally Major Scale fingerings and starting on the root of whichever mode I am playing. I believe I have read recommendations otherwise saying it is more efficient to have a fingering for ever mode so you can have your strong fingers better aligned.
By the way, I use the Musician's Institute standard fingerings for Major and Minor scale. I have noticed Jody Fisher, Jimmy Bruno and others have their own system. I may tweak mine one day but for now, it works for me.
-
04-04-2012 08:36 AM
-
A mode is a pool of notes...you can use whatever organizational system you want, but you certainly want to know how to access the characteristic pitches of that mode in something else than a root position scale box.
It's fine to use the major scale patterns as long as you pay attention to how the most important notes have changed.
-
Modes are not implied by fingerings, but rather by creating a musical hierarchy within a given note collection.
In my opinion it is best to be able to execute any scale/mode starting on any note with any finger and be able to move in any direction.
That said it does seem people do manage to make some respectably good music with a less thorough approach.
-
As mentioned, a mode is a pool of notes, a sound not dependent on any fret pattern or fingering.
Whether that pool of notes is heard as a mode or not doesn't depend on which note you start on (or even on any way you might play them), but on the root of whatever chord you are playing over.
If you are playing alone, then the sound of a mode depends more on the note you end your phrases on, not the one you start on. (provided you can make that note sound like a keynote, a tonal centre.)
IOW, while I appreciate you're only talking about fret patterns and fingering, there's really not a lot of point in giving fret patterns mode names; moreover, it can actually be misleading and distracting, if you think you need to apply a certain pattern in order to get a certain mode sound.
Stick with the "major scale" associations you know (and adapt fingerings for comfort if you want); but stay aware that any one pattern can work as 7 different modes - same fingering. Every pattern (of the same major scale) has the same pool of notes!
Rather than thinking modes (within a scale pattern), think chord shapes: what chord shapes can you see in the scale pattern? Practise working with the arpeggios of those chord shapes.
-
JonR, as I am sure you are aware, a portion of your post is a bit controversial since the concept of "modes" is bandied about quite a bit in music theory, including here on our little forum.
Originally Posted by JonR
While I fully appreciate your great advice on understanding and learning the arpeggios of chords within a scale shape, and your advice on the effect of the note one chooses to end on, I am a little fearful of abandoning my view of modes within scales.
Am I right in stating that you do not seem to have much use for the concept of "modes?" If so, could you elaborate why? To my newbie brain, a discussion of modes is very germane to Jazz theory. Thanks in advance!
-
Every mode has a tonic chord. The remaining notes offer ways to move away and back to the tonic chord.
Dorian
Dm C
Dm Am
Dm Em
Phygian
Dm Cm
Dm Eb
Dm Adim
In addition to extended harmonic rhythm, one mode events, the term "mode" also describes a collection of notes that color a chord.
Dorian
DEFGABCD-----DFACEGB-----1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13-----Dm7 (9/11/13)
Phrygian
DEbFGABbC-----DFACEbGBb-----1 b3 5 b7 b9 11 b13-----Dm7 (b9/11/b13) also used as a dominant chord melodic source-----D7 (b9/11/b13)
These are applied in music modal and otherwise.
I think it is equally valid to view each mode by it's own intervallic merits as well as part of a parent scale.
Fingering wise they are all the same notes.
I believe Jon was trying to be helpful and not controversial in his post.
When you say " I am a little fearful of abandoning my view of modes within scales", what is your view of modes that you are fearful to abandon?
-
AFAIK, my view on modes is not controversial at all, and is held by most, if not all, of the folk here. Of course, I may not be expressing myself too well! Originally Posted by AlsoRan
The problem with modes is that they mean different things to different people. The terms are applied in at least two senses, which are not fully compatible, and which are often (understandably) confused.
If I can try and lay it out (apologies if you already know or accept any of the following, and for any possible didactic tone that might creep in...
)
1. Modes as fret patterns (rotations of a major scale, or of any pool of notes).
Obviously, as fret patterns, this is a usage familiar only to guitarists. It's usually based on naming a major scale pattern according to its lowest note.
It's understandable in that we have to give the different patterns some kind of names. There is no naming system I'm aware of that doesn't come with some potential for confusion. (Even the phrase "C major scale" is biased towards C being the most important note, when it might not be.)
IOW, this is purely a system of labelling, that doesn't have to mean anything. We could call the patterns Bob, Sue, Wednesday, Belgium, for all it matters.
2. Modes as sounds.
This is a historically valid sense for all musicians. The concept has undergone many changes over the centuries, but basically a mode is a kind of "key" (in the broad sense). IOW, it is a pool of notes in which one of them assumes priority as a "tonal centre". This note will be heard and felt to be the one which sounds most "complete" or "finished" when placed at the end of phrases. (The old medieval name for it was "finalis".)
The medieval modal system lasted for some 1000 years, slowly giving way (as harmony grew more complex) to the idea of "tonality" and the concept of "key" as we understand it: major and minor, which grew out of Ionian and Aeolian (themselves two new modes, not used in medieval times). The major-minor key system produced all the major works of classical music, but began to decline towards the end of the 19th century as composers felt it was exhausted.
It carried on in popular music, however. It was only in the late 1950s that some jazz musicians began to feel the key system (and its attendant "functional" harmony) was getting tired, or they were getting tired of it. As a way out, Miles Davis and Bill Evans explored a different attitude to harmony and melody, which became characterised as "modal" (although it has little in common with ancient modal practices).
"Modal jazz" distinguished itself form the earlier "functional, key-based" jazz by avoiding traditional chord "progressions", and even by avoiding tertian chord forms (built on 3rds), going for more ambiguous and fluid quartal harmonies. The idea was to create static moods, enabling free melodic exploration (within the given pool of notes).
As this "revolution" developed, it began to be combined with older habits, and composers would often combine a series of different modal chords in one composition.
The idea developed that each mode could be expressed in one characteristic chord (as a shorthand symbol) and - vice versa - individual chords could (and should) each have their own distinctive scales.
To oversimplify somewhat, the whole concept of "chord-scale theory" (CST) developed from this idea.
This was all well and good in the kind of jazz that grew out of the 1960s and 70s. It was a theory that (mostly) suited the common practices of the time.
The problem came when this brilliant new idea got applied to older forms of jazz, with their key-based chord progressions. After all, many musicians (especially students) still played those old jazz standards, and always needed to know ways of negotiating the changes, methods of improvisation. CST seemed to offer a coherent strategy; and was easy to teach, easy to write down in books and absorb into academic jazz courses.
But functional harmony is always about strings of chords working together. No chord is an isolated entity, as it is in most modal jazz. CST - and its attendant concept of "applying modes" - tends to separate chords from the context, from their raison d'etre. It's like not seeing the wood for the trees.
Even the non-modal elements of CST (such as the altered scale), which have more relevance to functional harmony, can be misleading.
The essential point here is to separate modes from keys. Keys do not "contain" modes. A scale (pool of 7 notes) may be played as 7 different modes, but only two of them (Ionian or Aeolian) are keys, or rather the basis for keys.
Once Ionian or Aeolian become a major or minor key, then other modes have no place in the discussion. D dorian mode is not "in the key of C major" any more than C major is "in D dorian mode".
Moreover, key harmony works very differently from modal harmony, as explained. Key harmony consists of relatively simple chords (stacked 3rds) all harmonized from the same scale, with different "functions" within the key (tonic, dominant and subdominant). The chords are arranged in "progressions" with a kind of "narrative"; a sense of meaningful connection, one to the next, achieved by various kinds of "voice-leading". Dissonance is used as tension designed to "resolve" towards consonance, creating a sense of forward movement and expectation (ie "narrative", like telling a story).
In contrast, modal harmony works with almost random collections of notes from the pool, either using no chords at all, or building them in 4ths and 2nds in order to avoid the functional connotations of tertian chords. There may be dissonance, but it's non-functional: it has no tendency to resolve (at least not in traditional ways), and is heard as just "local colour".
If key harmony is like an "emotional roller-coaster", modal harmony is like sitting still in one place and contemplating one mood.
(And if you think that makes it simplistic, listen to Indian raga, modal music par excellence; and not a chord in sight.)
Working with key harmony, then (as we are when playing any jazz standard written before 1959), we need to understand the "big picture" of the key and the chord movements and connections. To take any chord in isolation in order to "apply" a scale to it is to risk the "narrative" breaking down. The "machine" only works when everything is wired up correctly.
Not only that, but the idea of seeing each chord separately makes the whole business ridiculously complicated. There is only ONE scale: the scale of the key. There may well be alterations to that, as the harmony moves around (secondary dominants, chromaticism, etc) - and we need to take note of the chords as we go - but modes are never relevant, and CST is rarely helpful. The LINEAR nature of key harmony is what matters. (There are a few jazz improvisation books with "linear" in the title, which should be taken more seriously than any with "modes" in the title.)
To understand modes themselves, the least useful method is the "relative" method: eg, taking all the modes of one pool of notes (C ionian, D dorian, E phrygian, etc).
The more useful one is to compare "parallel" modes: same keynote, different scale (C ionian, C dorian, C phrygian, etc). Given a well established keynote, this will reveal the character of each mode, and how they really relate to keys.
Eg, C mixolydian mode is "C major key with flattened 7th". It's not the "5th mode of the F major scale". (Well, it is in one sense - "relative" - but not any useful musical sense.)
Modes are a system of composing music, that is usefully different from keys. They are not (or very rarely) a way of improvising in existing music.
An existing composition (key or modal) already has its modes written into it. You don't "apply" them.
When improvising on a piece of music, choosing a scale is not one of your creative decisions; the composer already did that. It's about identifying what scale(s) the piece uses. It's extremely rare that a piece of music does not contain all the information you need; very rare that any scale choice is left open to the player.
Moreover, if the piece is in a major or minor key, the (theoretical) modal nature of each chord is irrelevant. It's a distraction.
-
A cool thing to do is to play all of the "modes" starting on the same note. It really helps in learning to "hear" the differences between dorian and phrygian. lydian and ionian etc.
-
That's a point I make all the time. If you play a C ionan (major) scale then an E phrgian scale: Originally Posted by eddy b.
C D E F G A B C B A G F E D C
...
E F G A B C D E D C B A G F E
It's going to sound like you stayed in C major for all of it, because of the way our brains locked onto the first scale. But if you play E major then E phygian (helped by letting your bass E string drone on...)
E F# G# A B C# D# E D# C# B A G# F# E
...
E F G A B C D E D C B A G F E
It's going to sound very differently to our ears,
-
Suppose you are playing a tune. And you need to play some mode for a bar or two. What note should you typically start on and what note should you typically end on? Somebody on here said that for arpeggios you want to start on the third rather than the root when you are soloing. So I have tried to do that and I think it has helped. Now JonR talks about an ending note when playing alone. But let's imagine that you are playing with a rhythm section or band in the box or whatever. I mean you have a bar, sometimes a half a bar to employ some mode. Now what is a good way to start and end it?
For extra credit: What are we doing with the mode that goes beyond the arpeggio? Well we are going to go beyond the chord tones, Why exactly? For some kind of run? That seems to be the best answer I can come up with. If that is right, then where should we start and where should we end?
Thanks and I apologize if I am hijacking the thread.Last edited by jster; 04-04-2012 at 07:43 PM.
-
I have very rudimentary knowledge of this so please excuse what might be an irrelevant/ignorant question: Originally Posted by JonR
How do you look at the "choice" of playing a Major Pentatonic versus a Minor Pentatonic over a typical I, IV, V. aren't you choosing the "mode" at that point? It seems to me that the only scale "suggested" is the I major scale.
Thanks,
Ken
-
i will answer the original question - which was about guitar fingerings.
I. One octave.
For one-octave modes, played on strings sets 6-5-4, 5-4-3, 4-3-2, and 3-2-1.
CAGED fingerings should yield two useful fingerings per mode for all strings sets except 3-2-1. It will yield one useful fingering for that string set.
Leavitt shows you how to finger scales/modes 5 ways. Starting fingers 4,3,2,1 and 1s. i think that's overkill, but that's just my opinion.
There are other fingering systems/approaches as well. Feel free to explore but you should know at least two, per the above.
II. Two octave.
Starting string 6. Same as before, CAGED should provide two fingerings and Leavitt shows you five.
Starting string 5. I believe that the Segovia approach (one good fingering per mode that involves playing the first octave in one position, and the higher octave in a higher position with a smooth shift) is the best approach.
Example: C Major scale, 2nd position, starting string 5, starting finger 2.
play up to the leading tone in position 2, then shift to the 5th position with your first finger playing the tonic and finish the higher octave in that position. (first octave on string set 5-4-3, second octave on string set 3-2-1)
III. Three octave scales/modes.
let's leave that for another time. (but a hint: (1) the Segovia scale approach but you will need to work them out because he only documented a few, and (2) Berklee mirror fingerings. In both cases - one fingering per scale/mode.)
Cheers.Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-04-2012 at 08:09 PM.
-
Why? What would make you "need" to do that? Originally Posted by jster
That's because it's generally more interesting. The bass has the root, so you don't need to underline it. Originally Posted by jster
Well my question is still "why?" Originally Posted by jster
What do you mean by "employing" a mode?
Could be anywhere. Originally Posted by jster
Generally speaking it's good to start and end phrases on chord tones. (And a phrase may cover more than one chord, and so end on a chord tone on a different chord from where it started.)
But "chord tones" can mean (IMO) any consonant extension. Eg, you could start or end on a 9th, or 6th. So that makes 5 notes that you can treat as "primary" notes (although that's assuming major 9th and major 6th, which is what you get on I, IV, V and ii chords in a major key).
That only leaves two as "passing" notes, assuming we're just considering diatonic scales. Those passing notes will be different on each chord (and we can use modal terms to describe them), but we only need to know the key scale. And they're only passing notes anyway.
In fact, all the other 5 chromatic notes can also be used as passing notes. They're obviously more "outside" than the other 7, but if they're quick, on weak beats, and resolved to chord tones, they'll work.
IOW - as I've said before - it's all about "inside" and "outside" and learning to juggle the two. And there's a spectrum of 3 or 4 levels within that:
1 (most inside): chord tones (root 3rd 5th, maybe 7th)
2: consonant extensions: diatonic major 6ths and major 9ths (and 7ths if not included above)
3: remaining diatonic notes; ie the 4th of any chord - although this can be quite consonant on minor chords; the b6 on vi and iii chords; the b9 on iii and vii. These generally come under the heading of "avoid notes", although there's no need to avoid them altogether, at least not in solos. (The term just refers to putting them into chords; which you generally shouldn't do.)
Levels 1-3 comprise what's sometimes known as modes (chord by chord), but those terms are of no use to you.
If you don't know what notes are involved in these levels (for any particular piece of music), you need to learn some key theory.
4 (most outside): remaining 5 chromatics. These are technically all "wrong notes". But they provide a useful source of edgy contrast at any point. Passing notes, naturally, but just occasionally (if you're feeling daring) they can be accented or stressed. What you should almost never do, however, is end a phrase on one of them. (I say "almost" - I once heard Miles Davis end a whole solo on one; it was hugely effective and entertaining. But then he was Miles Davis... and he picked the right one.
)
You can think of level 2 as the pentatonic of the chord, if you like - major pent on major chord, minor pent on minor - and there is a kind of blurred boundary between levels 2 and 3 (and maybe between 1 and 2).
This is actually how music works, how we hear it. We hear every individual note in relation to the background: the current chord, and the established key. So those are the relationships you need to understand. Modes won't help you with that. (They are a kind of set of relationships of this kind, but a fairly limited one, with narrow application.)
Every single note (every interval, that is) has a character, an expression you need to get familiar with. You need to know what a 9th sounds like, what a #4 sounds like, etc. And you need to know which ones are diatonic and which aren't.
The key relationship - scale degrees - is probably more important than individual chord relationships - tones and extensions - but in some jazz it varies: chord relationships can be far more important in modal jazz. Of course, that's where modes ARE useful!
But you still don't really "apply" or "employ" them, in the sense of coming up with a creative decision about which ones you like. You work within the modes of the piece; just as you work with the major or minor scales spelled out by a functional progression.
If you had a piece in D major, you wouldn't think "hmm, I think I'll apply the B major scale here..." (at least you shouldn't)
Well I think I did that already... Originally Posted by jster
-
Hmmm. Maybe the first few choruses you played arpeggios and so you need to mix it up? Originally Posted by JonR
I just mean playing the mode. I figured I could employ an arpeggio, a blues scale, maybe a bebop scale, or a mode. I thought they were on the menu! Originally Posted by JonR
Me likes! Originally Posted by JonR
Hold on a minute! I am finally getting all those funky names down. Shouldn't I think in terms of the mode so that I can see the chord tones and passing notes better? And melodic minor modes aren't drawn from a "key scale" are they? So you lost me a bit here. Originally Posted by JonR
Hmm. But, but, what if I am playing and there is, oh say a IVm7 chord. Now I can play dorian over it, but I could also play the first mode of MM minor over it. So I have a choice don't I? Originally Posted by JonR
Thanks Jon. I am going to make a big pot of coffee and read all your posts! I remember you had some really good stuff for me a couple of months ago. Problem is too much good stuff on this site for me to keep up with.
-
Sure - it's the concept of the "mode" I'm trying to tease out here - what you understand by that. The whole issue begins with definition of terms, and I just want to know how you define "mode". Originally Posted by jster
OK, we're getting close... Originally Posted by jster
I presume you mean the appropriate scale for the chord. I use "scale of the key" in those cases; it's the same for all the chords, at least if they're harmonized from the same scale. I never think separate modes for each chord, unless it's obvious that's what's required (eg in modal jazz).
A bebop scale is a diatonic scale with a passing chromatic note inserted; they are designed for specific chords, and I don't normally use them - and I don't believe the bebop players themselves thought that way either; it's an invention by theorists after the event. I feel free to use any chromatic note in passing, whenever it seems right.
Blues scale, too, has specific applications (IMO). (I mean, I use it a lot - probably too much! - but only in what I consider the right places.)
Can you lay out (if it won't take several pages...) your understanding of modes?Don't let funky names seduce you! They might not mean anything... Originally Posted by jster
Well, it's one way of doing it. Of course you should think in chord tones and passing notes. Originally Posted by jster
And you can call that the "mode" if you want, but I see it as an unnecessary set of labels. To me, the passing notes are just the remaining ones from the key scale. I know what they are, and don't need to name each separate collection according to each chord root.
IOW, there's no problem with how I think you're thinking this. It's a little long-winded (IMO), but not incorrect. I was worried you were using the phrase "play a mode" in terms of a specific fret pattern or neck position (it is a commn misynderstanding); I guess you are just thinking of it as a "pool of notes", which are available everywhere.
(BTW, when I say "worried", I'm not going to lie awake at night thinking about it... )
Well in a minor key they are! Originally Posted by jster
The concept of superimposing melodic minor modes elsewhere (eg on altered dominants) is useful if you have actually learned all your melodic minor scales as well as your major scales. They then provide short cuts to getting the right alterations in certain contexts.
But you can also work from the alterations themselves - which IMO makes more sense. Eg if you have an E7alt (key of A minor), you only need to know that it contains root-3rd-7th, plus both altered 5ths and both altered 9ths. And away you go.
Of course, if you've remembered your jazz scale theory, you can think "ah, F melodic minor" - and away you go again.
But F melodic minor has no connection with A minor - it's pure coincidence that the notes happen to match the E altered notes (with enhamronic adjustment of course). Ie, it's a handy shortcut - IF you know your melodic minor scales perfectly.
Personally, I could never make proper use of the altered scale until I understood how it resolved on to the NEXT chord. This is the whole point! Linear flow of phrases; voice leading. The whole point of altering the dominant is to give you plenty of half-step moves to consonant tones or extensions on the tonic. That's really all you need to know. (The tritone sub, Bb7 - or Bb9, Bb13#11, same set of notes - is a clue of course.)
Not exactly. If it has a b7 then melodic minor won't fit. Originally Posted by jster
If it has a maj7 (as it often does), then yes, melodic minor of root fits.
But either way, the strategy I like - which gets straight to the point - is "altere the scale of the key just enough to accommodate the chromatic chord tones"
You have an Fm chord in key of C? Just lower the A of C major to Ab (hey, cool scale, harmonic major; just don't tell anyone I told you...)
You have an Fm7 in key of C? Just lower A and E to Ab and Eb. Happens to produce what's otherwise known as C harmonic minor.
Don't like the jump from Ab to B? Then lower B too, and get what's otherwise known as F dorian (Eb major).
You have an Fm(maj7) in key of C? Just lower A to Ab. Harmonic major again, but - as above - if the Ab-B interval sounds awkward, use Bb. That's F melodic minor, of course. But how much do these other scale names help?
(I think they do, personally, but I think it helps more to see the key relationship, and look out for voice-leading options.)
IOW, while scale names (and mode names) CAN help, as labels for bunches of notes, it's important to keep the main thing in mind: to "see the wood" and not be distracted by the "trees".
In all the excitement of imposing a different scale on each chord, it's easy to forget the big picture, which is the flow from chord to chord. You rarely actually NEED a whole scale on any one chord. Chord tones and the odd passing note (or root pentatonic) is usually plenty.
And passing notes can be almost anything - diatonic or chromatic; as long as you resolve them properly.
The real problem with thinking in scales is that it can tend to lead to playing scales. Eg, if you see an E7#5#9 and think "ah, F melodic minor!", maybe you're just going to rip out a scale run in F melodic minor... (bad idea). But if you think in terms of individual notes and their functions (voice-leading), then you are starting from the ideal place to construct meaningful melodic phrases. 3 or 4 notes generally have more impact than 7.
(Having said that, I often "cheat" and use prepared licks - although they're always chosen according to how neatly they resolve.)
Where it gets really interesting (IMO) is in the "sweet notes" - the upper extensions and alterations that you can sometimes stress. Burying your head in modes won't help you see those. (The notes in question - or one or two of them anyway - may not be in the mode of first choice.)
But as long as you understand that hierarchy of intervals from the chord root (combined with a similar hierarchy of intervals with key tonic of course), you can name things how you like
.
-
I would suggest experimenting with both approaches and finding what works best for you. Most modern players have a grasp on both approaches. Whether one approach is 'better' than the other will be something you will need to determine for yourself. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
I try to leave the definitions to you guys! But I know 14 modes well in the sense that I have a bunch of fingerings for each of them. They have a beginning note and are made up of every possible combination of half steps and whole steps. Within each, we can pick out a 4 note chord stacked with thirds. Here is an example: Lydian dominant. It contains first and foremost a dom7 chord. I figured someday somebody would tell me that it can do wonderful things that a mere arpeggio never could. Somebody would write a tune and in the middle would be dom7 chord that the Lydian dominant would fit like a glove. And then, not only would I be able to play with feeling, speed, and rhythm, but I would be also be able to play some deep and tasty ass tones. Originally Posted by JonR
I don't really know what you mean by "appropriate"! Hell, that is why I am here: to learn which ones are appropriate for the chord! Let's not beg the question! Hehe. And "harmonized from the same scale"? I don't know. Maybe. I don't really know what that means. I mean the Lydian dominant I imagine just fits the bill in the middle somewhere. The tune ain't written in Lydian dominant or even the corresponding MM I key. So I am probably a bit lost as you can see. Originally Posted by JonR
You mean you never felt like you should whip out Lydian dominant for a bar or two (outside of modal jazz)??? Originally Posted by JonR
See above! Do you want me to name notes? Originally Posted by JonR
Can you lay out (if it won't take several pages...) your understanding of modes?
Hmm. I thought minor keys had to do with natural minor, but MM wasn't really about keys. After all, there ain't no key signature that just has one Eb in it buddy! Originally Posted by JonR
Isn't this the "just play it in C" line of thought? I can't believe you are saying this! Originally Posted by JonR
I am really not happy about this. 
I could have done that 30 years ago. I mean really. You mean that is all one has to do to play jazz? Play chord tones and tweak the scales enough to fit? Does Wayne Shorter do that? If he told me he did I don't know what I would think. Did Richard Strauss do that? Just tweak the notes as little as possible?
-
Jster, I think it might help to frame the discussion in some kind of context otherwise it's tough to pin down what you are referring to exactly.
It would probably help JonR to respond if you gave him a specific chord progression or tune to use as a frame of reference regarding lydian dom, melodic minor, etc.
It would definitely make it easier for me (and others I imagine) to follow along and benefit from the discussion as well.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-06-2012 at 12:11 AM.
-
Well, I am just getting started (after 30 some years!) "employing" Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
modes in tunes. Prior to this, I couldn't play over a 7#9 chord with anything more than a pentatonic scale. So I learned all the MM modes, "locked and loaded" as they say. And I joined the practical standards thread and they are working on Misty. So that is the first tune that I am seriously trying to use these modes. So here are four bars from the bridge:
D-7 |G7 Bb7 |Cm7b5 F7b9 |Bb-7 Eb7 |
And here is what I came up with to play over them.
C maj scale | Cmaj scale BbMixb13 | CLocNat2 F HW | Ab maj scale
So I get to the four beats of BbMixb13 | CLocNat2 and there I am playing two enharmonic modes of MM.
So my question was just when playing modes like these, whether there was some rule of thumb as to how to begin and end.
Somebody had said to not start arps on the root but rather the 3 or the 7 and that works for me and so I sort of mentally rearranged my arp fingerings so that I would be able to quickly grap the 3. And JonR mentioned something about how to end a mode above when playing (I believe) unaccompanied.
I wondered whether something could be said for modes when playing accompanied. How should we begin and end? That is really where we are in this discussion. At least that is where I am.
After that we get two beats of F HW which is pretty fast. But I could ask the same thing about them. Where should we begin and end?
And even when we go back to the Ab maj scale (which is a mode after all), which notes should we be beginning on. Seems like the root is itself a kind of "avoid" note maybe perhaps I dunno you tell me.
I got some sleep and feel better. I was really tired last night. I just try to make you guys chuckle a bit because I probably ain't going to teach you much. I am just trying to figure out what I need to read next. I asked in another thread about Nettles and Graf because I think I need to go through the theory of functional harmony and then that will lead me to a better idea when to use these modes (outside of modal jazz of course!). But nobody had an opinion on the Nettles and Graf and it is going to cost me 50 bucks to get one. I started reading some Riemann (that is in the public domain), but it is kinda long with hundreds of exercises. I really don't know what to do next. I bought a bunch of books from Berklee a few years ago and they are all pretty good, but they are on diverse topics, and none really explains all this "secondary dominant implies lydian dominant" lingo I hear bandied about by you guys. I want to walk to the walk, but I can't even talk the talk. (There is a song lyric in there somwhere. You want to walk the walk, but you can't even talk the talk! do da do da.)
Don't get me wrong. JonR said some really good stuff about voice leading and it will work its way into my brain eventually. But the problem isn't really his explanation or my brain. The problem is I need a systematic way of moving forward and I am not sure what is best. I don't want to keep sounding exasperated in threads when I just need to read something systematic.Last edited by jster; 04-06-2012 at 03:46 AM.
-
jster, Originally Posted by jster
I too have gotten a lot out of JonR's posts, and like you, I like to analyze and build a framework of knowledge in my mind. I read a lot of the theory posts and regularly reanalyze what I have learned to see if it all still fits and is valid.
As a sidenote, you know JonR is an international member somewhere in England, I believe. I picture him in a huge castle-like mansion, coming downstairs to a gigantic study full of walnut bookshelved along a couple of the walls and rows of books on divrese subjects such music theory, ancient greek tragedies, world history and other intellectual subjects. He comes down in a smoking jacket and the butler has some smoking, hot tea waiting on him. He goes to his computer screen and views the Jazz Guitar Forum as he takes a sip and then in mid-swallow he eyes glare and he sits bolt upright and states," What is wrong with these people; they still don't understand?!?"
Alright, that is my humor for the morning. Back to work for me, and good luck to you on gettin your questions sufficiently answered. But you have to appreciate JonR's patience, even if you may not agree with everything he says.
-
I know this is controversial but, FWIW, here's my take...
There is no such thing as a "mode". What we have are some scales that are "modes of each other". What this means in practice is that the fingerings are similar-looking in a special way. Do not think of, e.g., playing the C Major Scale over Dm7. Think of the D Dorian Scale instead.
Why? Because as you're playing the Dorian Scale you need to be able to see what chord tones you're playing. If everytime you go to play a note you have to think "Hmm, that's the 4 of C Major, and D is a whole tone above C, so the chord tone a whole tone below the 4 is the flat 3, so that will be how it will sound against Dm7", you're doomed. You need to be able to visualise the Dorian fingerings in relation to the m7 arpeggio immediately, without going through such awful contortions.
My advice: learn your Major Scale fingerings thoroughly, then learn the fingerings of all the scales that are modes of the Major Scale in relation to their triads.Last edited by Rich Cochrane; 04-06-2012 at 10:41 AM.
-
This thread has helped me clarify some stuff that I've been thinking about lately, and it's very helpful. So, thank you, to all who have participated.
I think that starting with a key center approach, ala, using the parent scale of the key and modifying it to include the non-diatonic chord tones is a good way to get started in jazz. And, as a bonus, it's not jazz specific- you can play a rock song like that, for example, and still have it sound good.
However, you shouldn't just be playing the parent key, you should be targeting the juicy notes of the chords within that scale. So, for a ii-V-I in C major, I'd be playing a C major scale, but (for convenience, just using 7th chords), while I'm playing over the ii, I'd be targeting the D, F, A and C, for the V, the G, B, D and F, and for the I, the C, E, F, and B.
If you examine pretty much all Western Art Music between the 1300s to the 1800s, that's pretty much how they crafted their melodies- and some of those melodies are the most beautiful that you'll ever hear. After that, of course, things got a bit more interesting, including more chromaticism, but to start off playing inside for jazz, this will work.
From there, start including chromatic intervals; listen to how they sound over the chord and use them as your ear dictates.
This isn't to say that modes of the scale don't have a place, because they do- even the classical composers got tired of sitting in a diatonic key all the time and moved into a modal style of composing. But for music that fits the key based system, this should work.
Understand, though, that I am not as experienced musically as most of the other folks that have posted in this thread; I'm a 20 year old who's picked up music theory over the 12 or so years he's been playing music, most of which wasn't jazz. So take this with a grain of salt.
-
Sounds reasonable. Originally Posted by jster
The way I think of it is there are 12 major scales and 12 melodic minors (I assume that's where your count of 14 modes comes from, 7 of each).
The melodic minors only differ from the majors by one note (the 3rd).
Each scale has (IMO) 5 patterns (some say 7, but they overlap and I think 5 is enough). In major scales, these align with the CAGED system. (These 5 also overlap a little.)
Of course, you only need to move the patterns to get all 12 keys. IOW, there are only 5 patterns to cover every key (and of course every mode in every key).
Any one of those patterns can be used for any of the scale's 7 modes. (This is where I'm against the modal naming system; it makes some people think a mode can only be played with one pattern.) You can pick any note in the pattern as a root note (or rather find the root note of any chord within the pattern).
Likewise, every single pattern contains chord shapes (or arpeggios) for all 7 chords in the key. (Again this aligns with the CAGED system, and 5 shapes for every chord; at least for every major chord, minors and diminished are a little more awkward and you need partial shapes or arpeggios in some position.)
With melodic minor, it's a little more complicated, because generally the modes are used outside of the "parent" key - eg lydian dominant like you say. But even so, a lydian dominant arpeggio can be found in any melodic minor "mode" pattern you choose (and at least a partial chord shape too); just as any other chord you can harmonize from the scale can be found in any pattern.
Naturally, some patterns lend themselves better to fuller chord shapes, or - when soloing - to particular kinds of phrases. And also certain patterns may make it easier to "think" in a certain mode. But there is not one pattern for one mode, that's the point. (Whichever correct sense of "mode" you like to use.)
Well, any melodic minor pattern contains a lydian dominant arpeggio. As I say, maybe 2 or 3 of them make it easier to see a chord shape there. Originally Posted by jster
I say "maybe" because I start from the chord shapes, and work out the scale around them. I don't start with scale patterns. I see a lydian dominant chord in a chart, I know a few shapes for it, and I plot the scale around the chord tones, wherever on the neck I choose to play it.
Or more likely - because I can't think fast enough to plot out a whole scale (and don't need to), I'll be planning routes through the chord tones, between the chords either side. But I'll be aware that all the passing notes on the lyd dom chord are potentially chord extensions (it's one of those chord types where all 7 notes are consonant with the chord).
Lydian dominant is for whenever you see a 7#11 (or 9#11 or 13#11). Originally Posted by jster
OR, for whenever you see a plain "7" chord that is NOT a V chord. (Typically, lydian dominants are bII in minor keys, or bVII in major keys, but can occasionally occur elsewhere.)
IOW, you need to look where the chord is going.
Bb7 going to either Am or C? Bb lydian dominant! (Also if you see Bb7 as IV in F major, although F blues scale might be better.)
Bb7 going to F or Fm? Possible to F major, but not likely! (Bb mixolydian if F major, and Bb altered or HW dim if Fm, would be the most likely choices.)
OK! Then you really need to learn about major and minor keys! (Maybe you do, just checking...) Originally Posted by jster
Eg, if you saw the following sequence:
Gm7-C7-Fmaj7-Bbmaj7-Dm7-Gm7-C7-F6
- how would you choose your scales? Different mode on each one? Scratch your head about whether you could stick a lydian dominant in anywhere?
I look at that and immediately (within a second or two) know: F major scale throughout. In any pattern, anywhere on the neck. Modes are neither relevant nor helpful (not to me anyhow).
Of course, I follow the chords, and work to and from chord tones. I may choose favourite chord shapes (neck positions), for particular phrases. But I can "see" on the fretboard how the various shapes link up, and how I can follow some of the voices through the sequence. (Mainly I'll be thinking melody and rhythm, of course, but the chord shapes are my foundation.)
I use scale patterns, of course (which some would call modes), because that's inevitable; but I don't think about them. The chords spell out the whole scale.
Thinking in scales is thinking at a level beneath where you need to be. The level above (chord tones) is actually simpler, IMO. And certainly more musical. That's because chords (and arpeggioes) are ready-made musical entities; scales are not. Scales mean breaking the whole thing down too far.
(It's rather like walking down the street by looking down at where you place each foot. You don't need to do that, and it makes walking more complicated, and slower. You only need to look a few strides ahead.)
Sure - when I see a 7#11 chord! (And they tend not to occur in modal jazz. "Modal jazz" generally means one (or more) of the modes of the major scale, not melodic minor. Originally Posted by jster
Melodic minor modes get used in functional harmony. The purpose of a lydian dominant chord is to resolve in a specific fashion: usually down a half-step, sometimes up a whole step; or just occasionally as a rather nice colour on a major key IV chord.
I actually really like the lydian dominant sound, so I DO try to check for it in any tune I come across.
One of my favourite tunes for lydian dominant is "Moon River". Here's the lyrics, with the "lydian dominant moments" in red (it could be any key, and you can find the chords elsewhere if you want them):
Moon river, wider than a mile
I’m crossing you in style some day
You dream maker, you heart breaker
Wherever you’re goin’, i’m goin’ your way
Two drifters, off to see the world
There’s such a lot of world to see
We’re after the same rainbow’s end, waitin’ ’round the bend
My huckleberry friend, moon river, and me
All of those are IV7#11 chords, except for "breaker" which is a bVII13#11.
That's maybe overdoing it a little (lyd dom IV chords are a very rich sound), but hey... (Not many other songs offer this much opportunity.)
All of them (except "rainbow") have the #11 as a big part of the melody, and a couple have the 13th too ("breaker", "rainbow").
BTW, a bVII7#11 can be seen as a sub for a minor iv chord. Eg, in key of C major, a Bb7#11 is really the same thing as Fm(maj7), just with a different bass note. It's F melodic minor in either case.
So if you see a minor iv chord in a jazz tune (major key), try putting a bVII bass note under it: instant lydian dominant!
[This post too long: continued below...]
-
[Above post continued...]
OK, I was being a bit cheeky with my comeback there, but I infer from that that your understanding of keys is incomplete at best. Originally Posted by jster
The minor "key" employs a scale with variable 6th and 7th degrees. Most of the time they'll be flat (ie "natural minor") but occasionally - usually before cadences - they'll be raised, in order to make a stronger resolution (harmonic or melodic) to the tonic chord or note.
Eg, C melodic minor is an occasional alteration of C minor, in that key. IOW the key sig would have 3 flats, but you might sometimes see the A and B with natural accidentals attached - signifying melodic minor.
This does happen in jazz too (eg "Autumn Leaves" has one melodic minor phrase in it), but of course - as we know - the other modes of it are likely to be used in other contexts, for improv purposes rather than composition.
Just to be clear: ALL jazz before 1959 was in a major or minor key or keys. SOME jazz after 1959 was (is) still in major or minor keys, but had variable amounts of modal concepts grafted on to it. Especially immediately after 1959, some jazz was WHOLLY modal. Not much is now.
If you're playing any jazz (or popular music) written before 1959, modes are not relevant. And have limited relevance after that.
A lot of the time, yes. At least you can fake it that way! Originally Posted by jster
OK, you're right that's an oversimplification. But most "jazz theory" (at least chord-scale theory) overcomplicates it. (See the video below)
What I'm missing in that "fake/cheat" strategy is the idea of "secondary chord function". Eg if you get an A7 chord in the key of C major, it's likely to be there because it's going to Dm. (IOW, it's a "secondary dominant".). Now it's true that if you follow my "cheat" strategy and just raise the C note to C# to get through the chord, you will end up with D melodic minor (result! ) - but it's more useful to understand why the chord is there, because you can then plan some more logical line to end up on the Dm. (Although it may sound just as good if you blindly follow the cheat method - at least you won't get any wrong note!)
Of course not Originally Posted by jster
. They were composers first, and all kinds of thinking processes would have gone into why they chose certain scales or chords. They would have had themes in mind, to start with (melody, formal development, etc).
Wayne Shorter was a post-modal player anyway. A lot of his music combined functional with modal harmony - and he would have known the difference. My guess is he (like most jazz players before him) worked within a broad "inside-outside" spectrum. They knew all the "inside" notes; and they knew just how "outside" each of the others were (to different degrees at different times). They knew intervals (both melodic and harmonic) intimately. They would know when a #9 would be right and when it wouldn't. While they would have known all their scales, I doubt they thought about them when they played. They knew the sounds they heard and knew the sounds they wanted (and how to get them).
Wayne Shorter certainly wrote in modes, sometimes; so would have used those modes when improvising on those pieces.
I've posted the video below a few times, but it's about time for another repeat. It's one of the most inspiring (even thrilling) masterclass rants I know of.
(Don't scratch your head too much with all the above stuff from me. Just listen to this guy, and check out his other videos too. There's real gold threaded through all of them. And I don't think he mentions MODES once...)
-
Any fingering system is simply a means to an end... the point where you don't need to think about fingerings.... because you know and hear your fretboard well enough ... you don't need to go through the extra process... unless you choose to.
When you begin... starting on each scale degree and using a fingering and calling it by a modal name is cool... very easy to pick up without understanding tonal or modal concepts... Again you eventually move on to where you don't need the training wheels... terms or fingerings and maybe you begin to understand tonal and modal concepts... both euro classical tradition as Jon explains so well...
And if you get lucky... you'll begin to hear and understand harmonic progressions with different definitions of source(s) of function. In the case of modal music... there are no new harmonic structures not found in Major and Minor tonal music.... the differences are in the relationships between the chords and and in their function. I've gone through this before... so I won't put us to sleep. Some don't or refuse to hear or see the difference... I'm OK with that, and with traditional functional harmony and even trad. chromatic implications... But if your going to try and play jazz ... you should keep an open ear. Reg
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos